  Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive quote:
DirecTV and Dish Network still must show that Comcast's exclusive right to the Phillies, Sixers, and Flyers through Comcast SportsNet has hurt them competitively, which Cohen says is not a slam dunk.
Uh, what is the point of Comcast spending millions on this network and fighting to keep it exclusive if it doesn't hurt competitors. That is the whole frakkin' point. They offer triple play to hurt competitors, powerboost to hurt competitors, intro deals to hurt competitors...
Actions done to further their competitive position are by definition there to hurt competitors to Comcast's benefit. If it isn't hurting competitors (by driving subs and keeping subs on Comcast), then they shouldn't be spending millions on it.
I'd stand up and say, "Of course it hurts our competitors. That is why we spent millions of dollars and years of effort building that network and getting exclusive deals just like DirecTV spends a zillion dollars for NFL Sunday Ticket and Verizon spends billions deploying FTTH." They should be tying this to every competitive action everyone in every industry takes. | |
|
 |  JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5
 ·Optimum Online
| Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive One is competing on a competable issue, and one is done by monopolizing an "asset".
What are you going to do when the NBC deal goes through and Comcast decides that ONLY Comcast subscribers are able to get NBC?
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
|
| | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive said by JRW2:One is competing on a competable issue, and one is done by monopolizing an "asset". What are you going to do when the NBC deal goes through and Comcast decides that ONLY Comcast subscribers are able to get NBC? No they aren't. All of Comcast's competitors are free to start their own Sports Nets and compete. Comcast doesn't own these sports leagues. And even for providers that own venues, they don't automatically own the broadcast rights; the teams and leagues still do.
There is nothing stopping DirecTV from creating DTVSportsNet or Verizon from creating VerizonSportsNet and approaching these leagues and teams with truckloads of cash.
What am I going to say about NBC? The same thing I say about NFL Sunday Ticket. If I want it that bad, I'll subscribe to the service that has it. | |
|
| | |  jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive I think we could establish some kind of regulation to prevent a content distributor from possessing exclusive rights to a local sports franchise, and given the times, this should include both HD and SD. NFL Sunday Ticket does not destroy this type of competition, as it still allows for people to have a choice on how they want to watch their local teams on TV. They should not have to choose between FiOS or Cablevision. That's going too far. | |
|
| | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
1 edit | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive I don't. I think if VZ wants some content bad enough they can bid for it.
Otherwise where does it end? Does CBS get to complain that they don't get to air House or American Idol and Fox complain that they don't get CSI or NCIS and both complain they don't get Monday Night Football? Should Microsoft complain that they don't get Mario or Nintendo complain they don't get Halo? Should every channel but one scream that they don't get to air the Super Bowl? The world is created from exclusives of what form or another. | |
|
| | | | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1 | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive said by Z80A:I don't. I think if VZ wants some content bad enough they can bid for it. Yes, I agree. Provided that they are allowed to bid for it in the first place and the price is not set absurdly high, otherwise we again bring about an anti-competitive practice that would require regulation.
Verizon does not have to carry Comedy Central or any of the fleet of Viacom's offerings. Cablevision can drop the Food Network HD and leave customers in the area with an extremely limited number of options to get this channel. None of this is anti-competitive. There is a difference, and while it is subtle enough to bring about a legal fight in the courts, I believe there is need for some kind of outside control.
The consumers have very little tangible control over this market. The content distributors and content creators have largely excluded the normal supply and demand function that consumers typically enjoy with most other free market products. We are dealing with oligopolies with very little pricing competition that are looking to separate themselves from the other few giants with options and features. Buying the actual content and purposefully keeping it from the competition is doing the consumer absolutely no favors, and this should not be allowed to continue. | |
|
| | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive But Comcast, Cablevision or others aren't the content creators when it comes to these sports offerings. Yes, CV may have the MSG network and own a venue but they do not own the broadcast rights. Broadcast rights are owned by the team and the league and if VZ or Fox Sports rolls in with a better offer the team and league will certainly take it.
These leagues and teams have no loyalty. It's business and the company who writes the biggest check gets the rights. And these leagues and teams have every right to milk every dime they can out of their properties. MLB is regulated by Congress as part of their gov't granted monopoly so they may be able to make some claim but the NBA, NHL and other leagues aren't. They can be as greedy as they like as watching sports is not a right, it's a privilege. | |
|
| | | | | | | jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA
kudos:1
1 edit | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive said by Z80A:Broadcast rights are owned by the team and the league and if VZ or Fox Sports rolls in with a better offer the team and league will certainly take it. I don't have a problem with Fox Sports putting forth money for these broadcast rights, but I don't think that Verizon or Comcast should be able to do this, as it creates unfair competitive advantages. Let Comcast and Verizon squabble over the right to carry Fox Sports in a fair manner, and if only one can make a deal, fine. But I don't think it should be allowed for a content distributor to own Fox Sports unless specific rules are put into place to prevent anti-competitive practices. There are good arguments on both sides of this issue. | |
|
| | | | | | |  Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | But what about Comcast, who owns the channel, venue, and team? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive Then it's their property and if you want to watch you go with the provider who has it just like if you want an iPhone you have to go with AT&T, if you want NFL Sunday Ticket you have to get DirecTV or play Halo 3 you have to get an XBOX.
There is no right to watch the Knicks. They are a private team playing in a private venue on a privately owned network. I think a channel should be able to keep their multi-zillion dollar investment exclusive, that is unless they somehow used public funds to set it up or their regulated like MLB (under antitrust law). Otherwise it's the government coming in and telling a company they have to offer their private property to a competitor at a price set by the government (since CV wouldn't be able to say, Okay, the broadcast rights are a Trillion Dollars so obviously the gov't would have to say what "reasonable" means).
In other businesses, the law respects private property. The government can't compel Apple to license OS X for use on non-Apple hardware. The government can't compel Microsoft to port Halo 3 to Sony and Nintendo. The government can't compel Verizon to open FiOS lines to content competitors like they had with DSL. And the government shouldn't be forcing CV to "port" their privately owned content to Verizon.
If the FCC were to tell VZ they had to open their fiber to ISP competitors at "reasonable price" they would (as they had in the past) flip their wigs. But VZ expects CV to surrender their property at a rate set by the government. | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive Not every team plays on privately owned property
We have seen many teams use taxpayer dollars to pay for new stadiums/arenas | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive But the city gets a cut of the revenues of those venues correct? Public funding IMO changes everything. If they want free dough, strings could certainly be attached. Then it's up to those team/stadium owners to decide if it is worth it. | |
|
| | | | | | | JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| said by Z80A:Yes, CV may have the MSG network and own a venue but they do not own the broadcast rights. Broadcast rights are owned by the team and the league and if VZ or Fox Sports rolls in with a better offer the team and league will certainly take it. CV owns the teams too. and they own the network, MSG, so they do control the broadcast rights too, in a way....
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
|
| | | | | | | | | cablevision owns the Rangers and the Knicks, talk what you know, they hold all the marbles and they have been holding them tight! | |
|
| | |  BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | said by Z80A:said by JRW2:One is competing on a competable issue, and one is done by monopolizing an "asset". What are you going to do when the NBC deal goes through and Comcast decides that ONLY Comcast subscribers are able to get NBC? No they aren't. All of Comcast's competitors are free to start their own Sports Nets and compete. Last time I checked there was only ONE 76ers team ONE Flyers team.
What am I going to say about NBC? The same thing I say about NFL Sunday Ticket. If I want it that bad, I'll subscribe to the service that has it. And if I don't live in a Comcast area? If Comcast monopolizes NBC and I live in a Charter area how is that in any way fair? Cable companies choose to not compete on each other terirtory. | |
|
| | | |  camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive correct, the motto of the isp's and telco's "no competition no choice and the big one no price drops. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive said by camaro92:correct, the motto of the isp's and telco's "no competition no choice and the big one no price drops. yep,it's even valid in canada :/ | |
|
| | | Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2 | You know who owns the Flyers and Sixers, right? | |
|
| | | | said by JRW2:What are you going to do when the NBC deal goes through and Comcast decides that ONLY Comcast subscribers are able to get NBC? Not seeing any downside there  | |
|
| | |
| | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
2 edits | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive It's apples and apples. Exclusives are EVERYWHERE. Whether it's the Knicks, NFL Sunday Ticket or Halo.
If VZ wants it, let them bid on it. Comcast doesn't own those teams. Those broadcast rights are up for bids to any network willing to fork over the cash. If Disney rolls up with a truckload of money, the would be on ABC or ESPN. If VZ creates a Sports Net and rolls up with a bigger truck load of money than Comcast, they'll be on Verizon.
These teams and leagues have every right to get as much money and make whatever deal they want. It's their intellectual property. You don't have a "right" to see the Knicks or Yankees. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive Actually, Comcast does own the Flyers and 76ers. | |
|
| | | | | Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive Then it's their property and they can sell it anyone they want. | |
|
| | | | | said by VirtualSlew: One interesting sidenote is that Verizon FiOS TV service does include Comcast Sportsnet in the Philaelphia area. I suppose that since Verizon is not a satellite TV company, the loophole did not apply. But in NY/NJ Cablevision is using it to withhold MSG and MSG+ hi def feeds from Verizon.
This is why Comcast and Cablevision's arguments go out the window. These channels are no longer exclusives. They decide who they sell them to on a discriminatory basis.
Either you sell to everyone or you sell to no one. | |
|
| | | | JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: Comcast's argument, counter-intuitive said by robjlevin:Either you sell to everyone or you sell to no one. Correct.
If Cablevision/Comcast/DTV/etc. want to create a "channel" for the EXCLUSIVE purpose of providing "content" for their subscribers, then they are perfectly within their rights to do so, and they are NOT obligated to give access to ANY of their competitors.
The minute they allow ANYONE to carry that "content", they should be required to offer it to ANYONE who wants to carry it, and they should be forced to do so at the same price as they are charging the others. You should not be allowed to offer it for say a dollar to anyone who is NOT a competitor, yet be allowed to charge a competitor $100....
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
|
| | | | | I say give CSN to the satellite companies because then Comcast will just move most of their games to their very exclusive network they don't need to share with anyone else, The Comcast Network....lol | |
|
| | | | said by JRW2:One is competing on a competable issue, and one is done by monopolizing an "asset". What are you going to do when the NBC deal goes through and Comcast decides that ONLY Comcast subscribers are able to get NBC? Bit-torrent the top scif-if moives and shows from syfy | |
|
| | | said by Z80A: quote:
DirecTV and Dish Network still must show that Comcast's exclusive right to the Phillies, Sixers, and Flyers through Comcast SportsNet has hurt them competitively, which Cohen says is not a slam dunk.
Uh, what is the point of Comcast spending millions on this network and fighting to keep it exclusive if it doesn't hurt competitors. That is the whole frakkin' point. They offer triple play to hurt competitors, powerboost to hurt competitors, intro deals to hurt competitors... Actions done to further their competitive position are by definition there to hurt competitors to Comcast's benefit. If it isn't hurting competitors (by driving subs and keeping subs on Comcast), then they shouldn't be spending millions on it. I'd stand up and say, "Of course it hurts our competitors. That is why we spent millions of dollars and years of effort building that network and getting exclusive deals just like DirecTV spends a zillion dollars for NFL Sunday Ticket and Verizon spends billions deploying FTTH." They should be tying this to every competitive action everyone in every industry takes. you really need to come live in canada where w\once htey get 100% control prices skyrocket and offerings dwindle
YUP competition is so bad shakes my head. | |
|
| | | DTV's sunday ticket offering is unique to them, by value of the name, however on dish network out can order out of area new channels which will get you those out of network games. DTV has just made it easy to find those games but placing all the channels together. Speaking of which is you go those channels on DTV you will see its not By the NFL its brand Direct TV's sunday ticket. Cable Providers do not offer out of market new channels they dont have a high enough demand from customers in a market to cover those channels. Now if say for example, comcast owned plant in every market that had NFL games, they could carry that on all there plants nationwide. Granted what they would pay to carry abc nbc cbs from all markets nationwide as cable companies pay per user for there channels. Direct TV already pays a huge fee to these networks which includes those locals nbationwide, and if you notice when watching sunday ticket, you get that game only and those games are branded with the network they came from. Comcast on the other hand, have paid rights to the owners of those sports franchises to get exclusive rights to film those games, and they refuse to offer those channels to dish and DTV. Comcast is not blocked from carrying NFL network, which by the way if you don't know only include, NFL channel , and NFL Channel HD, and possibly 2 more such as NFL news, and NFL News HD. Many cable companies don't carry NFL network because of the cost of this channel package. When I worked for a cable company they (The NFL) wanted, some place around $1.75 a month per customer, on top of $45,000 a month. The channels must be carried on the basic line-up, meaning everyone must get them, and help pay, for that channel. In our a system like ours, that would equal a price jump to everyone of 3.50 for a few more channels that they not everyone would want. DTV and dish can carry NFL network because they give it to everyone and tops it cost each sub 1.80 to get that channel. Comcast tells dish and DTV no you cant carry our channels on your network, but they use the NFL sunday ticket when that is just DTV being smart and using they numerous feeds from locals to build that service. Yet they are to cheap to even carry NFL Network. You must really be able to understand network pricing and who can and who cant afford it without catching crap from customers. | |
|
 LinklistPremium
join:2002-03-03
Longport, NJ
kudos:5 |  Comcast court threat leverage against DirecTV NFL deal
End result: DOJ pressures NFL/DirecTV to open up NFL Sunday Ticket to cable under anti-trust threats to NFL and cable agrees to open up local team access to DirecTV. After all congresscritters and the DOJ pressured cable to let the NFL Network get on std tiers instead of extra cost sports tiers. So, they owe cable a deal.
And Cohen is the guy to make it happen since he has access to all the high end Dem politicians and has been a big Dem party power for a long time.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
| |
|
| | | Re: Comcast court threat leverage against DirecTV NFL deal said by Linklist:Comcast has at least a 50% chance of beating the FCC in court. But they do need FCC & DOJ approvals to takeover NBC. So I bet they will leverage the court threats to get some kind of deal. End result: DOJ pressures NFL/DirecTV to open up NFL Sunday Ticket to cable under anti-trust threats to NFL and cable agrees to open up local team access to DirecTV. After all congresscritters and the DOJ pressured cable to let the NFL Network get on std tiers instead of extra cost sports tiers. So, they owe cable a deal. And Cohen is the guy to make it happen since he has access to all the high end Dem politicians and has been a big Dem party power for a long time. Where do they hope to get the bandwith for NFL ST from??
indemand has 4 HD channels but only 2 can be live at one time? and some comcast systems don't even have 1 of them yet. | |
|
| | | | Re: Comcast court threat leverage against DirecTV NFL deal quote:
indemand has 4 HD channels but only 2 can be live at one time? and some comcast systems don't even have 1 of them yet.
For $315 per subscriber (and I don't know if that price includes SuperFan for HD)...Comcast will find the bandwidth. Seriously that is like $18.00 per WEEK. This is nearly as much as the MLB, NBA, and NHL combined. WOW! | |
|
| | | | | Re: Comcast court threat leverage against DirecTV NFL deal there are suckers born every min. | |
|
| scooper
join:2000-07-11
Youngsville, NC
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
 ·Embarq Now Centu..
| It will be a cold day in **** before that happens.
Comparing NFL Sunday Ticket to a regional Sports Network is so laughable, I can't see how you could write that with a straight face.
#1 - the RIGHTS to NFL Sunday Ticket are held by the NFL - not DirectTv. DirectTv OUTBID all other competition (including Comcast, etc.) for EXCLUSIVE rights to transmit them.
#2 - You can bet if the tables were reversed - Comcast would be SCREAMING UNFAIR COMPETITION. Well - it, just the same. Comcast, by keeping these away from the DBS providers, is doing UNFAIR COMPETITION by withholding the subscribers from watching their LOCAL teams on somebody besides COMCAST.
You can observe the effects of this where in the Philly area, DBS penetration is significantly lower than other major metropolitan areas. And this can be pointed directly due to the fact that the Philadelphia Pro sports teams are only available on Comcast. | |
|
| | | comcast offered a bunch of money for sunday ticket when it was up for renewal a few years back then directv upped their price and comcast decided to let directv win the bid for sunday ticket. So how can comcast complain that they now are unfairly treated by the nfl? They had their chance and balked at the price so it's their fault.
Meanwhile directv and dish haven't ever had the chance to get comcast sports philadelphia because spectrum and now comcast have used this loophole to keep it from satellite systems.
I see comcast losing and directv winning. Maybe the nfl will be forced to allow cable companies to distribute sunday ticket but they will see that no one wants to pay $400 a year plus $100 for hd. | |
|
 heat84Bit Torrent Apologist
join:2004-03-11
Fort Lauderdale, FL | This should be fun Comcast's chief policy and logic flim-flam man David L. Cohen says Comcast intends to tie the issue to DirecTV's exclusive NFL license: Good maybe both sides will bring each other down.
--
Bit Torrent is my DVR. | |
|
CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Meh, not a Sports Fan but... I do buy Cohen's argument. In this day and age where lots of people follow NFL teams other than their local market, DirecTV's exclusive with the NFL effectively does deny cable customers the ability to watch a lot of games that they'd be interested in.
Besides, content is content is content. It hardly seems fair to force owners of some channels to sell their content to anyone and everyone but to allow others to set up exclusives.
Either exclusives are OK or they're not. Pick one.
--
"Religion allows people who would otherwise be arguing about whether the Death Star could beat a Borg Cube to have a place of respect within society." | |
|
| | | Re: Meh, not a Sports Fan but... I for one am against exclusive deals PERIOD so keep that in mind.
However, there is a difference here between the NFL deal and your own networks.
One as you partnering with another company that anyone and everyone was able to bid on and the other has you keeping your channels away from the competitors for the sake of keeping them away from competitors giving yourself a competitive advantage. | |
|
| | CorydonCultivant son jardinPremium
join:2008-02-18
Denver, CO | Re: Meh, not a Sports Fan but... said by Skippy25:I for one am against exclusive deals PERIOD so keep that in mind. Well, I can see both sides.
One as you partnering with another company that anyone and everyone was able to bid on and the other has you keeping your channels away from the competitors for the sake of keeping them away from competitors giving yourself a competitive advantage. Well, the problem with this is that there are all kinds of ways of getting around this restriction. Comcast could spin off its networks and place their ownership entirely in the hands of the Roberts family. Then the networks make the decision to sell only to Comcast.
Entirely legal setup under your rules. And then we're back to square one.
A lot of this has to do with whether you take a more pro-consumer or more pro-private property view of these things. On the one hand, Comcast's network is Comcast's property and they can do anything they like with their content, including not selling to anyone they don't like.
On the other hand, consumers win out when you can get any channel on any cable company.
I kind of look at this in terms of no-smoking laws. In theory, I think bars should be able to set any rules they please. But I really really like not being around cigarette smoke while I'm out drinking.
Same here. I like the private property theory. I don't like how it plays out in practice as far as consumer choice is concerned. That's the dilemma we face in this country.
--
"Religion allows people who would otherwise be arguing about whether the Death Star could beat a Borg Cube to have a place of respect within society." | |
|
| | | VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | As a consumer, I don't want exclusive deals either but from a business point, I completely understand it.
I know people in several of these cities who got certain companies BECAUSE they knew that if they wanted to see teams, they had to get that service. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: As a consumer, I don't want exclusive deals either The problem is that CSN Philly and MSG HD are NOT EXCLUSIVES.
Comcast and Cablevision pick and choose who to sell to. Their exclusivity argument goes out the window the minute they sold to some competitors and not others.
CSN Philly is available on FiOS TV and MSG HD is available to Comcast, TW, and DirecTV. | |
|
 n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY | Fine... Okay then. Keep your terrestrial loophole BUT kiss your takeover of NBC Universal goodbye. Otherwise I see a future with Comcast withholding NBC from anyone who competes with it.
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
|
| Sammer
join:2005-12-22
Canonsburg, PA | Re: Fine... Agreed their is no way that Comcast taking over NBC would be in the public interest. | |
|
| | NFL The deal with the NFL is different. It is a contract that getsput up for bids every few years. Last round the cablecos bid but didn't want to pay what DTV paid. If they wanted to pay they would have it.
For those in Philly Comcast owns the sports teams AND the RSN. And of course they won't let anyone have it. | |
|
| | Story of America. Lets level the playing field. Similar situation but different product, this is what happened to the Phone company. Back in the 80's Bell was it. If you wanted to compete with Bell you had to build a phone network from scratch. But some companies cried about it. and Regulation came in and all of a sudden the Bells had to share their Physical network they built and controlled. Yes we can get into Tax payer dollars helped build so its slightly different. But the long and short is. If you build something and its great and others want it. They will regulate you into sharing it. | |
|
| | | Re: Story of America. Lets level the playing field. So with that in mind, when is Verizon going to be forced to open up the FiOS network?
After all, they want to force Cablevision to share MSG HD and News 12, so when are they going to be forced to share their lines? | |
|
| | JRW2R.I.P. Mom, Brian, Ziggy, Max and Zen.Premium
join:2004-12-20
La La Land
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Optimum Online
| Re: Story of America. Lets level the playing field. said by fifty nine:So with that in mind, when is Verizon going to be forced to open up the FiOS network? After all, they want to force Cablevision to share MSG HD and News 12, so when are they going to be forced to share their lines? No one cares about News12, but MSG in HD is the issue..
CV has been using their refusal to allow FIOS to carry MSG HD as a selling point for IO...
--
RIAA/MPAA... Bite me!!!!
In constant search for intelligent life on Earth! | |
|
| | |
1 edit | Re: Story of America. Lets level the playing field. Right. So it's understandable why they'll fight to hold on to it, just as it's understandable why Verizon is dumping copper to get rid of the pesky anticompetitive line sharing regulations. | |
|
| | | | Line sharing and content sharing are not the same thing.
If you want Verizon to open up their FiOS network then all other cable providers need to allow other companies to offer triple play services over THEIR CABLE LINES. That is line sharing. This has nothing to do with content sharing.
#2. Verizon has no interest in News 12, that's why they created and continue to develop FiOS 1. However, regarding MSG HD, Verizon's argument is that CV provides the channel to other cable providers and to DirecTV, but arbitrarily decide not to offer it to Verizon. This is like back during civil rights movement when certain businesses would arbitrarily decide who can get service from them and who can't.
So if you want Verizon to share their lines, that's fine, let Cablevision and Comcast share their lines as well. But please don't compare it to content sharing because the two are not the same.
3- My recommendation to Verizon: Buy Disney, and say you will withhold Disney, ABC, ESPN from every cable company and I guarantee you won't have any problems getting access to the content you want and let the cable companies keep their terrestrial loophole. | |
|
 er
@sbcglobal.net | I want my CLTV and CN100 / comcast network chi on direct tv! I want my CLTV and CN100 / comcast network chi on direct tv!
We have the 20% comcast owned comcast sports net CHI
and CLTV is WGN owned. | |
|
| | Typical Comcast... Sunday Ticket exclusivity has nothing to do with Directv. It has EVERYTHING to do with the NFL. It's the NFL's content and they decides who can have it. The NFL put it out there, Directv paid for it and now has it.
The bottom line is if Comcast has an issue with Sunday Ticket, then they need to be complaining to the NFL not Directv. This is why Comcast trying to link these 2 issues is just silly. | |
|
beaups
join:2003-08-11
Hilliard, OH | Your anger.... Would be more appropriately spent on the sports teams (phillies, knicks) that are making the exclusive agreement with the Comcast owned stations. They are the one's allowing this to happen. Instead of TW and DirecTV trying to get access to the Comcast station, they should be trying to win their own deal with the team owners. | |
|
| Jodokast96Stupid people really piss me off.Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2
1 edit | Re: Your anger.... See my other reply above. That anger is indirectly directed at the teams, because guess who owns them? | |
|
| | Regardless.... Regardless of whatever transpires, one thing we know for sure. Sports fans and subscribers get screwed no matter how you look at it. | |
|
 dks7
join:2004-05-31
Omak, WA | Constitution Screw comcrap and screw corporations, people need to read the laws of this nation, corps arent allowed to operate more than 10 years max in America, and in doing so during that 10 must show just cause, you all are sheep crying to the wolves, I know, I was once there, understand the constitution and all this garbage becomes, well, irrelevant.
/Civil Disobenience to defend the Constitution.
sorry if that ^ is wrong, I never understood scripting hehe its not my thing.
good luck folks | |
|
| | directv bought fsn pittsburgh and a couple others in decembe In december directv bought fsn pittsburgh and a couple other fsns off of liberty media. They are supposed to become directv sports net pittsburgh but also be available to other competitors. | |
|
| | | Re: directv bought fsn pittsburgh and a couple others in decembe said by mikedz4:In december directv bought fsn pittsburgh and a couple other fsns off of liberty media. They are supposed to become directv sports net pittsburgh but also be available to other competitors. they need to kill that fox sports master control system and give them local control like other RSN's.
All games in HD on CSN CHI is better then fox sports not all in HD setup. | |
|
rody_44Premium
join:2004-02-20
Quakertown, PA | so what nobody really cares about the sixers or the flyers. its all about the eagles and phillies. comcast owns neither of them. the sixers and flyers are lucky to pull a few thousand a game. | |
|
| | Comcast Doing the Smart Thing Comcast created the local sports net precisely because it would be exclusive. Precisely because it would give them a sustainable competitive advantage. That's 100% legal and 100% the point in business: do something your competitor can't do that customers care about and leverage that into customers that pay the bills.
Comcast and other companies don't exist to wipe our noses and take care of us. They exist because someone put money at risk to earn a reward. That's it. It's not evil and it's not fascist. It's reality.
DirectTV, having no Internet or voice services, has to make the one pony it has do amazing tricks to stay competitive. Answer? Tons of HD (though not any more than DISH - but that's another story) and exclusive rights to sell the NFL Sunday Ticket. They lose money every year selling it, too - meaning the sum of the fees they collect are less than what they pay the NFL each year. But they make up for it by winning and keeping customers they would otherwise either not get at all or would lose to competitors. Again, their choice.
Anyone who thinks government should force companies to give away their hard-earned competitive advantages must be willing to admit to being at least a bit of a socialist. Why stop there? Why not take away everyone's hard-earned salaries, put them in a big pile and then divide evenly? That's fair, right?
Being a consumer that wants everything for next to nothing is no different. There is no inalienable right to watch to 76ers on DirecTV. If you like them enough, get Comcast. Is it 100% convenient or easy? No, but then again, no one said life was fair. | |
|
| | | Re: Comcast Doing the Smart Thing said by Video Guy :
Comcast created the local sports net precisely because it would be exclusive.
The point that people keep missing is that it's NOT EXCLUSIVE. Once they decided they were going to sell it to other cable companies and FiOS their argument about keeping it exclusive went right out the window. | |
|
 caffeinatorComing soon to a cup near you..Premium
join:2005-01-16
WA, USA
kudos:4
·CenturyLink
1 edit | Who cares? I could care less about any of it.
I have never had cable TV, don't watch sports and the only TV I get now is the same old OTA I've had for decades except now I get 14 channels.
Which I never watch, because I download all my TV/Movies to watch when I choose and without commercials anyways.
And nope, before it's bought up, I despire BT. However, Network TV can go stuff itself in general.
Think about it...purely ad-revenue-driven websites are a thing of the past...yet that is how TV works.
It's a dying media format as it exists now, the Conan debacle is proof. His fanbase likely never watched him on the TV, nor do many/any of those 18-49 demographic have ratings boxes.
The Nielsen age is over.
--
My 9/11 Tribute..online since 9/14/01
Need an Avatar? Check out Wafen's Avatar Pages | |
|
| | | Re: Who cares? Awfully strong opinion for someone who doesn't care. | |
|
| | Monopoly Hurts Dish Sales Comcast's monolopy allowing only Cable TV to broadcast Philadelphia sports has compelled many people to stay with high priced cable. My local Dish salesman told me that if they could get Comcast Sports Philly, they would install Many more services in my NE PA area.Dish network should take a poll of all the Cable subscribers in PA and find out how many would switch to Dish Network if they could get Comcast Sports out of Philadelphia and submit the results to FCC. | |
|
|
|
·
·
